1988 (3) TMI 212 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal interprets 'fabric' in I.T.C. Policy, emphasizing plain meaning over precedent. Upholds redemption fine.

The Tribunal clarified the interpretation of the term 'fabric' in the I.T.C. Policy, emphasizing plain meaning and dismissing reliance on previous ... Questions relating to intendments Issues:1. Interpretation of the term 'fabric' in the I.T.C. Policy.2. Justification of banning non-woven fabric imports.3. Validity of penalty imposition and fine in lieu of confiscation.Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of the term 'fabric'The first issue revolves around the interpretation of the term 'fabric' in the I.T.C. Policy. The question raised was whether the term 'fabric' includes both woven and non-woven fabrics. The Tribunal emphasized the principle that words in a document should be given their plain meaning and construed harmoniously. The reliance on a previous Supreme Court judgment was deemed misconceived as it was distinguished from the current case. The Tribunal clarified that the lists in the I.T.C. Policy serve different purposes, with one being a list of restricted items and the other of permissible raw materials. The argument of redundancy was dismissed, and it was noted that this question did not arise from the Tribunal's order.Issue 2: Justification of banning non-woven fabric importsThe second issue questions the justification of banning non-woven fabric imports while allowing the import of finished products like micropore under the same I.T.C. Policy. The Tribunal ruled that this issue does not pertain to a question of law but rather delves into the intentions and objectives behind the I.T.C. Policy. It was highlighted that the plain meanings of expressions in the law should be adhered to without importing any intendment. Citing a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal emphasized that legislative intent should be derived from enacted provisions rather than speculative opinions. Consequently, the questions related to this issue were deemed irrelevant.Issue 3: Validity of penalty imposition and fineThe final issue concerns the validity of penalty imposition and a heavy fine in lieu of confiscation. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not challenge the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority. The appellant's grievance was solely focused on setting aside the lower authority's order. Moreover, no evidence was presented during the proceedings to demonstrate that the redemption fine was excessive. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Reference Application.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the interpretation of the term 'fabric' in the I.T.C. Policy, the rationale behind banning non-woven fabric imports, and the validity of penalty imposition and fine in lieu of confiscation. The decision was based on legal principles, statutory construction, and the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately leading to the rejection of the Reference Application.